DEBATES ON THE DECLARA- 
TORY ACT AND THE REPEAL 
OF THE STAMP ACT, 1766 



Contributed by 
CHARLES H. HULL and HAROLD W. V. TEMPERLEY 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



gtmerican gii^tonal §mtw 



VOL. XVII., NO. 3 



APRIL, 1912 



w 



[Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. XVII., No. 3, April, 191 2.] 



DOCUMENTS 

Debates on the Declaratory Act and the Repeal of the 
Stamp .let. 1766 

The following reports of debates are printed partly because of 
their intrinsic importance and interest, and partly as a means of 
drawing attention to an endeavor in which the Department of His- 
torical Research in the Carnegie Institution of Washington is at 
present actively engaged. As has been made known to some readers 
by the annual reports of that department, it has for some time been 
making preliminary preparations toward a compilation to be entitled 
American Proceedings and Debates in Parliament. This will include, 
on the one haii^, the items relating to North American affairs prior 
to 1783 contained in the Journals oi the Lords and Commons of Great 
Britain, the Scottish Parliament, and the Lords and Commons of 
Ireland ; and on the other hand, the best texts of the various debates 
on American subjects which can be obtained by careful editing of all 
existing original materials, printed or manuscript. Besides such 
manuscripts in the Public Record Office and the British Museum as, 
by the kindness of Professor Charles H. Hull of Cornell University 
and Mr. Harold W. V. Temperley, of Peterhouse, Cambridge, are 
presented in the following pages, the managing editor of this journal 
is warmly desirous to learn of all manuscript debates in less con- 
spicuous public repositories or in private hands, which contain any 
matter bearing upon the history of America before 1783. Informa- 
tion regarding such manuscripts will be cordially welcomed. 

Apart from materials preserved in England, it may be useful to 
mention the probability that others, not known to the editor, may be 
existent in America. Thus, it has lately been discovered by him that 
a manuscript volume in the library of the Massachusetts Plistorical 
Society, which had hitherto escaped careful examination, contains 
a most valuable record of proceedings and debates of the House 
of Commons in 1628-1629, while another contains a similar re- 
port for 1673-1674 and for 1678-1679, which can be proved to 
have been written by Sir Edward Dering, member successively for 
East Retford and Hythe. This record contains notes of proceedings 
during a dozen days which are omitted from the printed journal. In 
the Library of Congress, again, there is, in the Division of Manu- 
scripts, a set of 45 volumes of Irish parliamentary debates in short- 

(563) 



564 Documents 

hand witli 37 volumes of transcri|)ts, constituting apparently much 
the most important record of debates in the Irish House of Com- 
mons from 1776 to 1789, aside from those in the printed Parlia- 
mentary Rcf^xstcr} Also, there are of course many transcripts made 
by George Bancroft from manuscript reports in England, preserved 
in the New York I'ublic Library. 

Of the reports herewith presented both relate to the same epi- 
sode in American history, but the first is a record of a debate in the 
Commons on the Declaratory Act, while the second records a debate 
in the Lords on the re()cal of the Stamp Act. The first, obtained by 
Professor Hull from the Public Record Office, Treasury Papers, 
year 1766, bundle 2,J2, is in the handwriting of Grey Cooper, who in 
the preceding July iiad become a secretary of the Treasury and in 
January, 1766, had, as a new member, taken his seat for the city of 
Rochester. The provenance and character of the second are suffi- 
ciently indicated in Mr. Tcmi)erley's introduction. It should per- 
haps be stated that, as the te.xt has come to us in a form marked by 
extreme abbreviation, the editor of this journal has thought fit, almost 
as if he were dealing with shorthand, to make the record easily in- 
telligible by expanding abbreviations. Grey Cooper's manuscript 
requires no such treatment. 

By way of explanation of both pieces, it may be useful to remind 
the reader tliat Parliament reassembled January 14 and that on that 
day Secretary Conway presented to the House various letters, peti- 
tions, and other papers relating to the disturbances in America caused 
by the passage of the Stamp Act.- These papers, with others of a 
similar character presented on the 22A, the 27th, and the 28th of 
January, were referred to the Committee of the \\'hole House and 
on January 28 were taken up by that committee, which sat from 
eight to ten hours on almost every day from that time until February 
21, when the seven resolutions which constituted its report were 
completed.' On February 3 began the debate in committee on the 
first of these resolutions, introduced by Conway.* This debate, 

' See the note on these volumes by Professor Marcus W. Jemegan in the 
English Historical Review, XXIV. 104-106. 

'Journal of the House of Commons, XXX. 447-451. 

* Ibid., p. 602. 

* " That the King's Majesty, by and with the consent of the Lords spiritual and 
temporal, and Commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and 
oi right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of 
sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects 
of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." The first three resolu- 
tions are copied by Grey Cooper, in substance, at the beginning of his report, but 
are omitted below. 



Debates in Parliament 565 

which is the one here presented, continued until nearly four in the 
morning, when the resolution passed with but few opposing voices. 
This resolution, when taken up by the House itself, February 24, 
was also the subject of some discussion, since, upon its second read- 
ing, a motion was made for its postponement, but after a debate the 
motion was lost and the resolution was adopted. On February 26 
the bill for the Declaratory Act was brought in, and, without further 
debate, it was passed on March 4. 

No report of the debate here presented is to be found in the 
Parliamentary History of England,^ but a brief summary of it is 
given by Bancroft, drawn, as he states, from the report made by 
Charles Garth'' to South Carolina, February 9, 1766.' A much 
fuller account of the proceedings of the committee is to be found 
in a report addressed by Garth on i\Iarch 5 to the three delegates to 
the Stamp Act Congress from ]\Iaryland ; this report has lately been 
published in the Maryland Historical Magasine} 

The Declaratory Act and the act for the repeal of the Stamp 
Act were received by the Lords on the same day, March 5. The 
discussion of the disturbances in America had been going on in that 
house since February 10. The Declaratory Act reached its second 
reading in the Lords on ^larch 7 and passed on jNIarch 13. On 
March 11 the bill for the repeal of the Stamp Act was read for the 
second time and the debate presented on a later page by Mr. Tem- 
perley followed a motion to commit it. 

L 

Genl Con-vay moved that 

I glory that I have not advised the sending a force there. 

The Americans irritated by repeated Blows in their Trade and 
Property. New Modes of Taxation always irritate. Lumber, Melasses, 
Swarms of Cutters, exhausted by the War, in debt. We had just paid 
their Debt and then called upon them to contribute to ours. I think an 
internal Tax false in its principle and dangerous in its consequences. 

Mr Doudesivelf seconds it. 

Mr Stanley^" I wish to see the whole E.xtent of what I am doing 
wr." this Motion be only to give a specious Appearance to the Xeglect 

' The account of the passage of the Declaratory Act. given in .Almon's Debates 
■jnd Proceedings (1772) and in Debrett's History. Debates, and Proceedings 
VI792), is identical with that in Cobbett. 

* Charles Garth, member for Devizes, was agent for the colonies of South 
Carolina and Maryland. 

■Bancroft, History of the United States (Boston, 1858), V. 413. 
^ Md. Hist. Mag., VI. 291—302. 

* William Dowdeswell, chancellor of the exchequer, M.P. for Worcestershire 
" Hans Stanley, commissioner of the Admiralty, M.P. for Southampton. 

" Whether. 

AM. HtST. REV., VOL. XVII. •J?. 



566 Documents 

of excrcisiiiR tlic Ri(»ht or the first Step towds the enforcing of it. In 
support of my former opinion some have reasoned as if the first Planters 
had recovered their State of Nature. This Doctrine mischievous to the 
Colonies. No British Subject can renounce his Allegiance, with respect 
to Representations wc are not Nobles: not feudal Tenants, not con- 
fined to a Profession but open to all Professions. The Commercial and 
landed Intst concerned in the Welfare of America: We have shewn 
them always .Attention. Copyr" nor Manufr not represented no more 
than the .American. No hardship upon cither. Rvery Man has Life 
and Liberty if he has not Property, if you rescind the BorouRhs you 
make an OliRarchy, if you throw them into the counties you will have 
no quiet Election, 80 candidates in Cornwall. Mr St John in his arRt on 
Ship Money argues that the power of laying Taxes and Laws are always 
in the same Legislature. If we have a seperatc Power as Representa- 
tives why not tax all but the Peers by ordnance. This a novel Doctrine I 
It was always talk'd of during the. War. Mr Legge" pointed out a 
Tax as a Cdcam of Comfort under our distress to support their army, 
reed with full approbation. My Principle is that my Country is sink- 
ing under a Burthen which she cant bear without assistance. If this be 
only a specious Preliminary we only deceive ourselves and shall in cfTect 
divide America. I am persuaded that enacting Laws and laying taxes 
so entirely go togr that if wc surrender the one we lose the others. The 
Americans have not made the futile Distinction between internal and 
external taxes. It would be arbitrary to raise the one if we ought not 
to raise the other. Massts Bay Resns, on Octr 1764. enact[ing] that the 
Courts shall proceed as if the .Act had never passed, is an Act of inde- 
pendant Legislature. They have exceeded what this House has ever 
done Meeting in a federal Union not to be dissolved by the Crown. 
They will soon become more useful Allies to France than to you as 
appears from the papers. Respect may continue but Obedience ceases, 
if the House cd do so frivolous an -Act as to vote the Right and repeal 
the .Act : The Repeal will not remedy the Disorders : They will argue 
Repn. further on your own .Admissions. All their Petitions are Insults 
on vour authority. No Resemblance to this and disputing your 
Juris[dictio]n. They have put the Mother Country under an Interdict 
and forbid Imports from hence. 

j1/r. YorUe^* I consider this as the Way of Proceeding most con- 
sistent with your Dignity separating the Q of Right from that of Ex- 
pediency. I shall be ready to repeal if I see Impracticability and will 
make free with my former Vote upon further Lights. The Roman 
Senate said inconsulto statuimus consultius revocamus. I wd. repeal 
not wantonly because it is asked, not timidly because it is resisted, but 
on being convinced of the Inexpediency, but I am clear on the Right. 
The sovereign Legislature must be supream. The Privileges of 
Lithuania and the Subdivisions of Holland are destructive of each 
country but we are governd by one Plan of uniform .Authority. The 
Colonists carried with them the Laws of their Mother Country. They 
wanted Protection and owed .Allegiance, they carried with them their 

" Copyholder. 

" Henry Bilson-Legge, chancellor of the exchequer during most of the Seven 
Years' War. 

"Charles Yorke. attorney-general, M.P. for Reigate. 



Debates in Parliament 567 

personal Rights but they wanted the powers of Justice and of Mercy 
till given by the Crown. The Legislative Power of Parlt extends as 
far as the Power of the Crown : you have limited the Succession of the 
Crown, established martial Law, given Modes of Trial, and have com- 
municated the Jura Civitatis to foreigners (wch the Crown cannot do) in 
all parts of the Kings Dominions. Ireland had been lost in the civil 
Wars and at the Revolution but for the Supremacy of the Legislature. 
At the Revolution, you gave the Crown of Ireland, you abrogated oaths. 
establish'd new one's, absolv'd by 3 and 4 W. 3. from Penalties encured 
by Irish Acts for Debts to the Crown, you sold the forfeited Estates 
to be paid into the Exchr in Engld by 10 W. 3. established an Army to 
be provided for annually there, if they exceeded their Number you would 
say it was contrary to Law. The Proceedings agst. Mr. Moleneux" in 
this house, appd a Comte to examine the Book, voted them pernicious- 
and addressed the King to enquire after the Author. These all since 
the Revolution. James I. was anxious that Ireland shd hold only of the 
Crown and advised in vain with Mr. Selden upon it. I Ph. and M. The 
Parlt represent the whole Body of the Realm and all the Dominions of 
the same. The Colonies not like those from the North that great 
Seminary of Nations, they come out to seek Establishts without any 
Reference to the State they left, nor like those of Greece, they only 
carried with them only Respect and often turned agst. the Mother 
Countries as she rose and fell ; but yours are more like of Rome going 
out under a decree of the Senate non suis radicibus petuntur sed a civi- 
tate quasi propagati sunt jura et."° 

The great Virginia Charter comprehends the whole, they are licensed 
to deduce a Colony. The others are derived out of it. No distinction 
between the several Sorts of Charter; the Tenures are not from the 
Crown but from the Soil within the Realm. The Legisl Power given to 
the Colonies is to be exercised after the manner of corpns in England. 
The Law can grant no other. He cannot grant away any part of the 
Supream Legislative, are the Privileges of Pensylvania less than those 
of the Colonies? The Exempt [ion] there expressed is implied in all 
the rest." New York 1713. Bill to raise a Revenue was prepared by 
Sr. E. Northey and Sr. R. Raymond. In 1716" on the Disorders in 
Carolina Lord Stanhope prepared a Bill for resuming the Judicial 
Powers in the Charter Govts and was twice read. In 1625 the first 
Virginia Charter vacated and on petition of the Agents they desired 
Exemption from Impositions except by Assembly and were answered 
that they shd not unless by the King in Parliament, !. c. not to the King 

'"William Molyneux, author of The Case of Ireland being bound by Acts 
of Parliament in England stated (i6g8), condemned by the English House of 
Commons. Journals of the House of Commons, XII. 331. 

'" Qu. ? non suis radicibus ponuntur sed a civitate quasi propagatae sunt jure 
et institutis patriae. 

"The clause in the Pennsylvania charter of 16S1 reads as follows: "That 
Wee, our heires and Successors, shall at no time hereafter sett or make, or cause 
to be sett, any impossition, custome or other taxation, rate or contribution what- 
soever, in and upon the . . . inhabitants of the aforesaid Province . . . unless the 
same be with the consent of the Proprietary, or chiefe governor, or assembly, or 
by act of Parliament in England ". 

" 1715. See Miss L. P. Kellogg in the American Historical .Association's 
Annual Report, 1903, I. 309-310. j 



568 Docunienls 

without Parlts. In the case of the Massachusets their first Charter gave 
no power of taxation, in 1684 vacated, held to be legal: applied to have 
it rcvirscd: the Sr. G. Trcby before Lord Somers Holt and Pollexfen 
loKI thcni that if they took their old Charter and imposed Taxes and 
calt'd assemblies their Charter might again be repeal'd. This proves 
that all those powers are derived from the Crown. Want of Kepres. is 
Consion of liquity of Right. Preamble 10 the Act of Durham. The 
old Subsidy Acts have express Words to bind all the King's Dominions. 
The Exceptions are not want of Representn for some actually repre- 
sented as Wales, the Northern Counties. Exemptions of Individuals 
then usual tho' not always allowed. The Subsidies were then con- 
sidered as Crown Revenue: the Appropriation Clause was introduced 
since the Revolution. Why are Copylirs excluded on a speculative Dis- 
tinction: Why lay any tax in the Colonies? In 1672 on the Conference 
on an Impost Bill," Tunnage and Poundage are considered the same as 
Impns" on Land tho' then material the Lands not being concerned in 
Merchandize. In 1755 Complaint of the Neglect of Pensylvania to the 
Council as a Breach of Trust. The Language of the Resolutions is 
subversive of all legislative Authority. In Politics as in Religion an 
Offence agst one part is an Offence agst the whole. Unless you assert 
your legislative Authority no friend will trust you no Enemy will fear 
you. 

Mr. Bcckford." L. Coke says in Dr. Bonnoms Case 1 18 that the 
common Law in many cases controuls Acts of Parlt." The Cases of 
New York and Carolina were both on their refusal to provide for Neces- 
sary Services. The Case of Jamaica was the Parlt or the Assembly and 
if the Assemblies will not the great controuling Power shall. Ireland 
is a conquerred Country, Pensylvania a Grant to a private Man. The 
dernier Resort of the colonsts is to the K. in Council. I positively deny 
the Right. Are the Colonies to be taxed by their own assemblies and 
Parlt. 

Mr. Nugent.'^ I am sorry that the American who has carried the 
Privileges has left behind him the obligations of Britons; he is not 
entitled to one without the other: if he is not obliged to pay obedience 
wherever he goes he is an alien : he is indeed conquered. Your Resolu- 
tion ought not to be so generaly. Specific words shd point out the specific 
cause of Resistance. 

GcnI. Comuay. I have no doubt on the Right because I cannot dis- 
tinguish between internal and external cases but I doubt of the Justice, 
Equity and Expediency. The Americans have denied the whole and I 
say that we have a right to bind them in all. 

Mr. Blackstonc." I approve of the Proposition because it is con- 
ceived in the most general and universal Words that can possibly be 
imagined. As to the Objt. of Representations if we taxed only in our 
representative capacity the Commons wd have the sole right of taxing 
for we are the only Representatives: but the other Parts of the Leg. 
must consent or our Vote has no Effect. Magna Charta and the Stat. 

" See Pari. Hist., IV. 480-495. 

" Impositions. 

"Alderman William Beckford. M.P. for the City of London. 

"8 Coke's Retorts, ii8a, case of Dr. Bonham. 

=■ Robert Nugent, M.P. for Bristol. 

" Sir William Blackstonc, author of the Commentaries, M.P. for Hindon. 



Debates in Parliament 5^9 

of E. I. and E. 3. refered to in the Pet. of Right say that Taxes are to 
be laid per commune consilium. No Tallage shall be imposed without 
Consent of Nobles, Knights, Burgesses and other Freemen of the Realm. 
Pet of Right without common Consent by Act of Parlt. The Commons 
have the sole Right of proposing and regulating the Mode because 
perhaps tliis is a temporary Body and, not so influenced by the Crown. 
In the Conferences 1671 the Managers directed not to enter into the 
Question and compare it to the Judicature of the Lords.*' They did not 
insist upon their Representative Capacity. It is the Representative of 
the Nation and not of Individuals. The Counties Palatine bound a large 
Body of Freehds a i6th part of the whole — the Towns of Birmingham 
and Manchester: if we were now to form a new Constitution Reasons 
might be given for admitting Leasehds. and I had rather have our old 
Constitution. It is a Contradn to say that the inferior must send Repres. 
to the superior: it then becomes a part of that superior and is both 
Subject and Sovereign. The Colonies are not part of the Realm but of 
the Dominions not bound unless named because they have Legislatures 
of their own. Sovereignty and Legislature go always together. They 
may dispute one Law as well as another. All the Dominions of G. B. 
are bound by Acts of Parlt — Calais, Guienne, Jersey, Guernsey, Ireland 
— and never contended that they must be represented. Calais only 
represented. H. 8 capriciously gave them Representatives but he gave 
none to others. Calais bound by Subsidy Acts before that time. In the 
Usurpation the House of Commons never pretended that all must be 
represented but declared that all in Ireland and Jersey shd be bound 
by the Representatives of this Kingdom tho' they declared that all right 
of Govt belonged to those Representatives. This was in 1648. In 1650 
on passing the Act of Navigation declared all American Colonies subject 
to England. Preamble to the same. In the Subsidy Acts Calais, 
Guernsey, Jersey, Guianne, are expected as necessarily from all the 
King's Dominions. In 1621 and 1623 free fishery declared (Journals) 
objd that it ought not to make Laws for Virginia because it encroached 
the K. Prerogative pass'd and resolved 17th March 1763. 5. G. 2. c. 7. 
Paper Currency. Q. Ann's Act for cutting down trees. All Penalties 
are Taxations, the Stamp Act is but a penal Law as almost all Revenue 
Laws are. The Law for quartering Soldiers is a Tax. Post Office Act 
voted by the Comee of Ways and Means and is an internal Taxation. 

Mr. T. Pitt^ The first Settlers owed obedience, at what distance 
did it cease, but better deny the Right than assert it and say that in 
fact we have it not whatever we say or that we dare not. does the 
Expediency arise from their Resistence. 

Mr. Htissey.'" The Colonies are annex'd unalienably to the Crown. 
The Sovereign power has a right to permit the Departure of the Sub- 
jects on whatever Conditions it pleases and if they make no Conditions 
he carries with him the common Law. To that he owes Obedience and 
receives Protection. The common Law says he shall be bound by an 
Act of Parlt. The Fact was K. J. i. assumed all Sovereign Power. 
The Lawyers then thought he might give them what Laws he pleased. 
It was said so in this house by the Secy of State. The Charters gave 
powers a King of Engd cannot. Hence arises the obscurity about the 

-''Pari. Hist.. IV. 4S0-495. 

== Thomas Pitt, M.P. for Old Sarum. 

'" Richard Hussey, M.P. for St. Mawes. 



5 70 Documents 

Constitution of the Colonics, the mistake w.is that no part can delegate 
its Supremacy witliout Consent nf the others: It miglit have been done 
by Act of I'arlt an<l My Notion of Represent, is, All Govt, began by 
Compact By Agrecmt. Frechds. and Burgesses shall chuse and be 
chosen and the F.Iectcd represents the whole people. This allowed in 
all but Taxation they represent territorally. It is sd. that the Commons 
alone can give and therefore not the Money of the .\mericans. The 
Relation of the Subject cannot be considered as territorial, he can't get 
rid of his .Mlegiance by Change of Territory. That fact as clear in 
Taxation as in every other Case. No distinction by the common Law. 
Consent says the Constitution is as necessary to every Law. .Ml the 
Judges have always avowed that any of the King's Dominions are bound 
if named. Exceptions before mentioned from the Subsidy .Acts prove it. 
I cannot distinguish internal Taxes, if the St. Act is illegal so is the Act 
of Navign. It wd be impossible ffir a Lawyer to distinguish internal 
from external. Obedience wd he uncertain. But it is summum Jus and 
summa Injuria. The Colonies went out on the faith of the King's 
Charters. They have been in many Instances recognized by the Legis- 
lature. It never acquiesced in the Privileges of Trade, the .\ct of Navi- 
gation immediately followed the Charter. Never the Taxation carried 
so far as by the St. .'\ct. The Post Office for Convenience at first, not 
thought of a[s] Revenue till Q. .Ann's Time. It never produced a 
Revenue till lately. The K. by assenting to the St. .Act has overturned 
as a limited Monarch the Privileges granted by his Predecessors as an 
absolute Monarch. Their .Abilities shd have been known, their com- 
parative Wealth, what we got by their Trade, how much it was ta.xed ; 
we then should have made a Requisition and to say pay or we will tax 
you. The Parlt. I believe never taxed Countries who had Legislatures 
of their own, you have therefore not imitated the wisdom of your pred- 
ecessors. 

Mr WcdderhurnT It is wisely said in your Journals that it can 
never tend to any profitable purpose to canvass fundamental Principles. 
The Seditions in .America do not relate to the St. .Act only. The .Sovty. 
of this Nation resides in K. Lords and Commons who represent the 
whole State of the Kingdom and must be Sovereign in ta.xes as well as 
others, by the same right as you affect the Lives and Liberties you 
affect the Properties of the Subjects. None of your legislative .Acts 
are founded on Repres. The first Settlers in New E. they excluded 
above 2/3 of their Numbers. 4 R. 2. These Principles condemnd. In 
1649 after destroying the House of Lords. In 1681 the Decree of the 
University of Oxford. These Principles now urged by the .American; 
to support the Democracy by those here to extend Prerogative. I think 
it absurd to declare the Right and avow that it is ever improper to exer- 
cise it (Resolution of Mass. Bay). The Colonies never disputed the 
Right of internal Taxes. Under \'irg. Charter the K. by Prer. taxed 
them to favour the Tobacco of Spain. The Council in Engd made the 
first Laws for Virginia, Deputies of the Crown, and the first Laws made 
by the Colonists was approved by the Council. In the time of C. i. 
Secy. Calvert obtained Maryl. Char. King's Power of Taxation. In 
C. 2. Pensylvania Chart., the K's Right of Taxing taken away and 
therefore the Power of Parlt reserved. When did the Pensylvns ac- 

" .Mexander Wedderburn. afterward Lord Loughlmrough. M.P. for .\yr burghs. 



Debates in Parliament 571 

quire Exemption. In 1683 the D of York and his Governors imposed 
taxes in New York. In Reign of C. i. the 4"^ p Cent imposed all by 
Prer. They never therefore disputed the Right of this Country in Taxa- 
tion first by Prer., now by Park. There has been no Acquiescence on 
our part. 

Mr. Scrjant Huct.'' 

Mr. Burke.^ Some of Charters declare the Right, others suppose it, 
none deny it. The Courts to wch they apply determine agst them. 
There is a real Distinction in every Country between the speculative and 
practical Constitution of that Country, arising from the Circumstance 
proper for receiving the first Principles of its Constitution. The King's 
Negative. The Right of the Clergy in Convocation to tax themselves. 
Let them evaporate do not expunge them. The British Empire must be 
governed on a Plan of Freedom for it will be governed by no other. 
They were meer Corporations, Fishermen and Furriers, they are now 
commonwealths. Give them an Interest in his Allegience, give them 
some Resemblance of the British Constitution, some idea of popular 
Representation. Draw the Line where you please between perfect and 
no Repres., but draw the Line somewhere between the two Extreams and 
I shall vote for this Motion because I know not how to fix Bounds to the 
coercive Powers of the British Legislature. 

L. F. Campbell^ I think nothing more dangerous than the Distinc- 
tion between theoretical and practical Laws, the Ex[ecut]ion of dormant 
penal Laws was one of the principal Complaints agst J. i. The Mode 
of Requisition is the Remnant of old Prerogative. 

Coll Barre." 1 shall move to leave out the words in all Cases what- 
soever. The Legislature of this like that of every other Country is 
supream. It cannot be controuled : but it ought to controul itself and in 
that sense you have no right to lay an internal Tax on N. A. The 
Essence of an assembly is the power of granting Money, if you encroach 
upon that you deprive them of the very Essence of Liberty. All the 
forms of Law were kept up in the Time of C. i. but there was no 
Parlt and you were Slaves. In Gibraltar and Minorca oppression is 
often exercised. Representatives from thence absurd : To have the 
Representatives of 3 meet here the Repres. of 7 Millions. If you do not 
mean to enforce the Law leave out the Words for they destroy Con- 
fidence. They will expect another St. Act. If you draw the Sword 
the Colonies are no longer yours. Suppose you subject them, you de- 
stroy your Commerce : France has not insisted upon Submission from 
her own provinces who have Estates in the heart of France: 

Mr. DoKjdesivcll. If the Words were left out the Resolution wd be 
too much confined. I do not know the Oblign Men are under to one 
Species of Laws and not to another. If I did not think him bound by 
all Laws I wd leave out the whole Resolution and to repeal many Acts 
of Parlt. I do not see the Necessity of Consent to Taxations and not 
to Acts affecting my Life and attainting my Blood. When you declared 
customary Freehds had no Votes did you mean that they were not 
represented or bound? The Colonists depopulated this Country by 
peopling their own: if they are not Subordinate they are a Loss. In 

™ Sergeant James Hewett. M.P. for Coventry. 

^ Edmund Burke, M.P. for Wendover. 

'° Lord Frederick Campbell, M.P. for Glasgow burghs. 

" Colonel Isaac Barre, M.P. for Chipping Wycombe. 



?7- 



Documcnts 



1717" Bill to take away their Charters and if you may not tax you may 
not take away Charters and Dummcr" tliat tho' the Law wd be cruel and 
unjust it wd be subinittled to. if you cramp the Kesn. they will dispute 
all Acts they have disputed most. The Act of Xavign was not enforced 
in Mass. Bay till 17 yrs after it was passM and they passed Act of 
Assembly because not represented. In 1748 Pet. on Paper Currency bee. 
they have an assembly of their own. In 1764 an Opposn. to 4th King 
on the same principle. If you repeal the Act you will do it more safely 
after declaring the right; not on their Resistance but in considn of the 
Represns of your Merchts. If you maintain it this Resn. is to your 
purpose. 

Mr. GrcHvillc." I nuist lament that the executive power of Govt is 
entrusted to one who apologizes for Rebellion. The Cutters were estab- 
lished in 1763. The ne.xt year was the greate>t that ever was and this 
was the Grievance. The \'irginia Pamphlet States the .Xct of Navn. as 
a Tax. The Americans believed St. Act wd be repealed: have they been 
deceived? Every Country wd do the same. Is it difficult for Ministers 
to get Petns agst Taxes. I opposed the Tax upon Beer, could not I 
first Comr of Treasy have got Petns from all the Mughouses in London 
and gained Popularity, but my Dissent was precluded by the Wisdom of 
Park. As to what he said of using force, has he not order'd all the 
Govrs. to send to Genl. Gage for a military force. We must account 
for it by knowing tliat Genl Gage had none to send. So resolve not to 
give up the right but for fear this shd. do no good in .America he thinks 
the Act contrary to Equity. No Cutters sent to W. Indies, no orders 
given to interrupt the Spanish Trade. No power in the original Charters 
to call assemblies. The learned Gentleman did not quote any proof that 
the Right of raising internal taxes exclusively was ever recognized. 
The Right to tax has been recognized and the same right has been 
recognized in the City of London. 8 W. 3. forfeits Charters if the due 
means be not taken to punish Piracies. The printed Case for Mass. 
Bay in 1715 desires to be put on the foot of all other in Englad. and 
desires that their Charters may not be taken away unless they have 
been guilty. 

I do not know that any Requisitions to raise Money: certainly not by 
Park then by a Secretary of State, does he consider that all Loans and 
Benevolences except by Consent of Park is illegal. That Doctrine of 
Requisn may one day put the King out of the power of Parlt. One 
Gentleman has compared this to a poetical fiction and a Question of 
Theory: We have then sat too long. If you have no right the Repeal 
is a necessary Consequence and I had rather agree in this than meanly 
attempt to deceive Mankind into a Belief that we mean to establish a 
Right we avow we do not mean to exercise. The Rebellion of 171 5 was 
bee an Act cd not overule the divine indefeasible Right of Kings. .Xt 
no time were so great commercial taxes given to the Colonies as in the 
two years of these taxes. I wish the Law were more wrong than it is 
that Eng. might give way to Justice and Reason not to force and 
Resistance. 

Mr Pitt. If Liberty be not countenanced in America it will sicken 
fade and die in this Country. I rise to second the Amendment. It is 

"1715- 

"Jeremiah Dummer, Defence of the .V«f England Charters (London, 1721). 

" George Grcnville, M.P. for Buckingham. 



Debates in Parliament 573 

absurd to vote the Right in order not to exercise it. If they have a 
Right they have it on all Grounds, on Compact amongst them : there 
is not a Man readier than I am to punish the Violence but redress the 
Grievances. It imports the Dignity of this Country to see some of the 
Offenders brought to Punishmt. I think them deprived of a Right: but 
by an authority they ought not to question. The first Settlers carried 
with them every Right consistent with their Situation and the Parit has 
not a right to lay internal taxations. Repn. and Taxation go together 
and always have in this Country. Counties Palatine did tax themselves 
and Writs of Requisition were sent to them from the Crown. In the 
Patent for erecting Lancaster it is reserved. An Act of R. 2 affirms the 
Exception in favour of the Counties palatine the it includes the Cinque 
Ports. Not look into foundations ! What wd this doctrine have con- 
cluded when prer. was thought fundamental. Machievel says look 
often into your Principles: What else produced the Reformation? What 
revived Libertv in this Country? In the time of E. 2. the Clergy taxed 
themselves tho' the great Clergy sat in the Legislature. The Conven- 
tion who laid the Taxes were not the Legislature. In the Conference 
1671 the Commons say the Clergy have a right to tax themselves. The 
upper house never alter the Acts of the lower nor does Parlt ever alter 
them. It proves that Legislature and Taxation were seperable. To 
impose the Tax belongs to the Legislature but this house only grants the 
Money. That is the ground-work on which the Legislature proceeds. 
Your first Act is to vote that a Supply be granted and till that is done 
the whole Legislature stagnates. The Speaker presents it as a Grant of 
the Commons. America was of mean Beginnings so was Rome but the 
scanty fountain is now become a large Stream covered with Sails and 
floated with Commerce and nothing should prevent my using an 
Effort bevond my force to avert the Dangers of such an express and 
full Declaration. I think you have not the Right. I mean to waive it 
by Silence and the most magnanimous Exertion of Power is often in the 
Non Exertion of it. I wish this to be an Empire of Freemen: it will 
be the stronger for it and it will be the more easily governed. Let the 
Premises and Consequences agree therefore, decline the Right, do not let 
Lenity be misapplied nor Rigour unexecuted: take not the worst of 
both. The Colonies are too great an object to be grasped but in the 
arms of affection. 

Sr. F. Norton.^'' He assumed the Proposition that Taxation and 
Repres. go together. I thought that Argt had been beat out of the 
house. There never was a time when that Idea was true. It is not 
true before the Norman Period: Men were call'd to the Council by virtue 
of Tenure. No House of Commons till H. 3. In Magna Charta a Petn. 
to the Crown that Taxes [should] not be levied without the Consent of 
the whole of the Great Council. They claim'd the Right common to all 
Legislatures that Taxation and Legislation go together. Magna Charta 
gi'^es and grants and yet it was only declaratory, so that the Give and 
Grant of the Commons proves too much. The Clergy taxed themselves 
because the Popes exempted the Clergy from Taxation, I mean the 
beneficed Taxation [Clergy?]. Their Lands were exempted and not 
their Goods and that introduced the tenths and fifteenths instead of Sub- 
sidies. Exceptions in the Subsidy Acts not only for the Counties Pala- 

^'' Sir Fletcher Norton. M.P. for Wigan. 



574 Doc um en Is 

line ami tlic N'orthcrn Counties Ik-cs tlic latter liorc large I'.iirthcns as 
frontiers and bcc the latter taxed themselves and thereby answered the 
same purposes. Lord Coke, Lord Ch. J. Anderson, and in Meeting of 
the twelve ludges, it has been determined that all the Kings Dominions 
shd be subject to the Laws. I think the Declaration unnecessary but if 
it must be the more general the better. If you follow the Dccln by a 
Repeal it is a Mockery of Parlt. The assembly of Boston is on a 
better footing, they will enjoy their Declaration, we shall not. I wd 
receive the American with open arms but I would receive him penitent 
and if something is not done to support this Law it will be the last you 
will pass upon North .•\merica. 

II. 

The following reixjrt of the debate in the House of Lords on 
the second reading of the Repeal of the Stamp Act is drawn from 
the Ilardwicke Papers in tlie Hritisli Museum, Add. MSS. 35912 
(Hardwicke Papers, vol. DLXI\'., fT. 76 ct seq.). Miss Kate Hot- 
black, B..\. of Dublin University, has greatly assisted the writer in 
the deciphering of this manuscript and in commenting on it. 

Cobbett in' Parliamentary History. X\'I. i8i, note, states that 
these debates have been nowhere preserved. It seems well there- 
fore to deal with this report from the point of view, first of its 
authenticity, secondly of its value. 

I. Authenticity. Cobbett printed several of his debates from the 
Hardwicke Papers,'" but had not access to this one. The reason is 
fairly obvious: this report was taken down by Hardwicke when the 
House was cleared of all outsiders, and was no doubt carefully 
locked up afterwards by him. Of its genuineness in the sense of 
being Hardwicke's own report of the debate tliere can be no doubt. 
It is unmistakably in his own handwriting and has all the marks of 
being a report written during the actual debate. The handwriting 
is hurried, there are mistakes, abbreviations, some missing and some 
illegible words. The writing is on both sides of the paper and 
blotted as though with hasty folding. How far it genuinely repre- 
sents the views of the speakers is perhaps a fair question. Some- 
times there is only a summary, sometimes a few broken and detached 
sentences, sometimes a fairly full report. On the other hand, wc 
have in another instance a means of finding out if Hardwicke was 
a good reporter. Hardwicke's report of the speeches at Pitt's last 
cabinet has been published and may be compared with Newcastle's.'" 

**£. g., the debate of February 10. 1766. in the House of Lords on the power 
of the king to make laws and statutes to bind the colonies, and the debate of 
Decemlwr 15, 1768, in the Lords on Discontents in .America, both printed in Cob- 
bett. Parliamentary History, XV'I. 163—177, 476—477. 

"English Historical Rciicu; XXI. ijo-132. 329-330 (19061; extracts pub- 
lished by \V. Hunt and by myself. 



Debates in Parliament 575 

A comparison shows that, while Newcastle's is the more length)', 
Hardwicke's is the more real and vivid, and that there is no reason 
to suppose that the latter missed anything vital or essential in the 
speeches which he abbreviates. On the whole, therefore, it seems 
probable that the Stamp Act Debate is adequately reported by 
Hardwicke. 

2. J'aluc. The real advantage of this report is that the Lords 
spoke behind closed doors and therefore could express their minds 
freely. The Chancellor, Lord Xorthington, openly says, " As the 
House is cleared and none of the House of Commons here — I will 
tell your lordships ", etc. The Lords shunned conflicts with the 
House of Commons in this era, and the Chancellor gives an inter- 
esting explanation of why they did so. Yet the Lords were, in a 
real sense, the rulers of England at this juncture, and this debate 
undoubtedly reveals their true feelings at this momentous crisis of 
policy. It is of some interest that the speech of Lord Shelburne 
here given, like his speech on the first reading, was silent on the 
question of legal right, and emphasized the commercial side of 
the question. It appears also that he spoke in this case as the direct 
mouthpiece of Pitt.^^ Newcastle's attitude on the Stamp Act ques- 
tion is consistent throughout, and he distinguished himself at 
least as much by his knowledge of commerce and by his disin- 
terested conduct on this occasion as upon any in his career.^'' Lord 
Camden's argument follows the same lines as in his speech on the 
Declaratory Bill*" but relies less on natural right. Lord Mansfield 
is much more interesting than in his speech on the first reading, 
because his words are exceedingly forcible, and betray those real feel- 
ings which were so often disguised in his public utterances.*^ No 
speech is more emphatic on the gravity of the decision to the unity 
of the empire. The whole tenor of the speeches, and the fact that 
at least one unusual speaker intervened specially in the debate, show 
that the Lords at least were thoroughly alarmed by the crisis. It is 
also remarkable that they divined the real nature of the opposition 
and resistance created by the Stamp Act. Only two of the speeches 
deal with the matter from a purely legal standpoint, and in one of 
these legal speeches Lord Camden says, " the true connection between 

'* See Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, I. 3J2-323, 364-377. 384-387. Shel- 
burne's speech on the first reading is in Parliamentary History, XVI. 165—166. 

^ Newcastle's assertion that the trade of England was declining everywhere 
except in America is supported by Public Record Office Trade Bundle C. O. 388, 
48 ; for his general attitude, see Winstanley, Personal and Party Government 
(Cambridge, 1910), pp. 244-264. 

"Pari. Hist., XVI. 177-181. 

*' Mansfield's speech on the first reading is in Pari. Hist., XVI. 172-177. 



576 Documents 

the colonics and Great Britain is commercial ", wliilc in the other 
Lord Mansfield sums up his argument by saying, " The Americans 
may think they have a right to an open trade and estahlisliment of 
manufactures. What tlien would become of us?" A perusal of 
the summary of the debate in both Houses, given in Parliaweiilary 
history, XVI. 193-206, shows that while the arguments of the Com- 
mons are fairly reproduced, those of the Lords are imperfectly given. 
In fact the judgment of the Lords in the crisis was more accurate 
than that of the Commons and, by concerning themselves mainly 
with the commercial question, they anticipated the view of modern 
historians." 

H. \V. \'. Temperley. 

[Extract from Cobbctt's Parliamentary History, W'l. i8i, for March 
II. 1766. 

" The order of the day being read for the second reading of the 
Bill, intitlcd, " An Act to repeal an act made in the last session of parlia- 
ment, intitlcd. An .Act for granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, 
and other duties in the British colonics and plantations in America, 
towards farther defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and 
securing the same, and for amending such parts of the several acts of 
parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and 
plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the 
penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned:' 

" Then the said Bill was read a second time, and it being proposed 
to commit the Bill, the same was objected to, Content ~2i '■ Proxies 32 ; 
Total 105: Not Contents 61; Proxies 10; Total 71: Majority 34. 

"After a long debate thereupon, the question was put, whether the 
said Bill shall be committed? It was resolved in the affirmative. 

"Speakers on the second reading: 

For the Bill. 
D. of Newcastle. 
Duke of Grafton. 
D. of Richmond. 
Earl Poulet. 
Earl of Pom fret. 
Lord Chancellor. 
Earl of Shclburne 
Lord Camden. 



" The speeches of these noble lords have not been anv where per- 
served ".] 

"The voting in the Lords on the Repeal, ii March, 1766. was 105 to 71. Of 
the latter 19 were placemen, who were presumably influenced by the king. See 
Winstanley. p. 307. On the subject of court influence in the Lords see also Fitz- 
maurice. Shclburne, L 366. 





Against the Bill. 




I. 


Earl of Coventry. 


2, 


3- 


Earl of Sandwich. 


4 


5- 


Earl of Halifax. 


6. 


9- 


Lord Botetourt. 


7- 


10. 


Earl of Suffolk. 


8. 


12. 


Lord Lyttelton. 


II. 


M- 


Lord Mansfield. 


13 


16. 


Vise. Townshend. 


15- 


17- 


Earl Temple. 




18. 


Duke of Bedford. 





Debates in Parliament 577 

Monday in a Committee upon the Bill declaring the Right etc. 

Preamble read. 

Lord Dartmouth. This Bill My Lords is of great and National Im- 
portance. It declares a Right to Exist in the Supreme Legislature of 
Great Britain which has been disputed all over America. 

The Tendency of the Bill in the Light I consider it is to restore 
Tranquillity to America and Great Britain. 

In the Observations I mean to make at present I will confine myself 
to the Preamble which has been just now read but I hope that in both 
the Preamble and Enacting part Noble Lords will all give their Assist- 
ance in making the Bill as perfect as possible as it is a Bill of so great 
Importance. It has been said by a Noble Lord that the Preamble is 
founded on a Mistake, that is such part of it as says that Several of the 
Assemblies have taken on themselves to assert or assume their Sole and 
Exclusive Right of Taxation which, it is said, is not a Fact warranted 
by the Papers on Your Lordships Table. 

I confess, my Lords, from the Inaccuracy with which the American 
Resolutions have been penned it is very natural that a Difference of 
Opinion should arise upon the Import and Meaning of these Resolutions, 
but yet I can't help saying that my Opinion is that this Preamble, as it 
at present stands, is well warranted upon the true and genuine Con- 
struction of Resolutions of the Assemblies of Virginia and Pensylvania. 
These Resolutions assert that they have the Exclusive and sole Right 
to lay Taxes on the respective Provinces, but it occurs to me that by the 
Insertion of a few Words all Disputes will cease. 

I therefore move after the Words " claim to themselves " that the 
Words " or to the General Assemblies of the same " may be inserted. 

Preamble amended by inserting these Words. 

Enacting part read . . . 

Lord Marchmont. I have reason to hope by the Appearance of the 
House that Nothing need be said in Support of this which I will call the 
Enacting part of the Bill. 

[The] Noble Lord has said that there is a Mistake in this part of 
the Bill and supposes it to have been copied from a Precedent which 
had No Resemblance to this, but I hope to shew Your Lordships from 
the Journals of both Houses that the cases are the same. 

In order to do that, it is necessary to give the History of that Matter. 

In the year 1697 7 Jan. a Committee of the House of Lords was ap- 
pointed to enquire how Appeals were brought from Ireland, on the 
House of Lords there" claiming a Right of Appeal to them. In 1698 
Plantation of Ulster with Bishop of Derry. But at this Time Ireland 
did not only dispute the Jurisdiction of Your Lordships as a Court of 
Appeall but likewise the Authority of [the] Legislature of this Country 
to bind that. And therefore as soon as House of Lords had asserted 
their Jurisdiction the [English] House of Commons on Account of 
Molyneux's Book and Resolutions of House of Commons in Ireland 
thought proper to assert the Jurisdiction of the Legislature. And made 
a Representation to the King which may be found in the Journals. This 
Address prevented the Irish from going any further, but upon the 
House of Lords finding that what had been done by them in the 
Bishop of Derry's case was not sufficient to prevent the House of Lords 

" /. e., the Irish House of Lords. 



578 Documents 

in Ireland from assuminf; the right of Appeal, a? in the year 1717 in 
Mr. Anneslcy's Case they did it again, the House of Lords then thought 
proper to go further than in the former Case, and therefore (Jrdcred a 
Bill to be brought in. History of that Bill as brought in by Judges, 
altered by Commons and passed by Lords.** 

The Bill [that was) past on this occasion [was] very like the present. 

[The] Noble- Lord objected that there is no Enacting Clause. At the 
time of the Revolution this Objection was taken when our Great De- 
liverer was declared King of this Realm. 

Every Lawyer knows that the word Declare is tantamount to Enact. 

In the Debate on [the] Revolution an Attempt was made to insert 
the Word Adjudge (following in this the Idea of the Civil Law) but 
it was thought proper to reject this word as tending to avow in Parlia- 
ment a power of judging and determining in this .\rduous Matter. 

The.se were the Mi.stakcs supposed to be in the Bill which willing to 
give Your Lordships My Idea of. 

As to the present Bill, does not look at it in any other Liglit but 
as a preliminary Measure — has always thought that Administration must 
go farther and has given his Sentiments on that Head to a Noble Lord 
in Administration. 

Lord Mansfield. When [he] made Observation last Friday — declared 
that He would propose No Amendment. 

After paying great .■\ttention to Noble Lord my Doubt still remains. 

The Object of the Bill as it at present stands is not [to deal with] 
persons denying the Authority of British Legislature, which thinks 
ought to be the Object. 

.Asks Lord M[archmont] whether Irish in 1698 in the Bill sent 
denied [the] Authority of Parliament. Ans. 12 V[ol.] Journals of 
House of Commons page 331 the whole proceeding may be seen — the 
Authority of Parliament was there denied.** 

As to what Noble Lord says that Declare and Enact are synonimous, 
agrees with this Lord, but My Objection is that this Act enacts Votes 
to be void. Now that I think unnecessary. 

Duke of Nni'castle reads the Declaratory part of the Act made on 
Occasion of Ireland's behaving in same Way as America — the Enacting 
or Declaratory Words in the Irish Act [are the] same as those in the 
Act at present before Committee. [He] could have wished that this 
Question had never come before House but it was the fault of Americans 
who by their Resolutions and their opposition to Law first made the 
Question. 

[He] has heard with great pleasure the Arguments on the Subject 
of Right — thinks the Supreme power must have a Right to bind its 
Subjects wherever they are by Laws and Statutes. 

Lord Temple has often declared his opinion that present Act 
Nugatory. The Act 7-S. W. 3 much stronger than the present. [He] 
reads -Act and afterwards Preamble. 

All the Provinces [that are] Corporations may forfeit their Charters 
— the Chief Justice of England their \'isitor. No Reason for this Act, 
the Americans will scout so will all the Kingdom but the Privy Councill. 
Your Lordships may for their Sake Enact it if you will. 

"See Pari. Hist.. VII. 642-64.1. 

"Commons Journals [of Great Britain], XII. 331. June 27, 1698. 



Debates in Parliament 579 

G[overnor] Fauquier in a Letter received July 1757 sends the Reso- 
lutions of Assembly of Virginia. In August following Board of Trade 
makes a Representation to the King on this Head. On 6th September 
This Re-presentation referred to the Councill together with Resolutions 
of Massachusets Bay. 

On 8th of October Councill report that it was a Matter too high for 
Privy Councill to determine and was vv'orthy the Consideration of 
Parliament. 

When Parliament assembled not till December — and then not to do 
Business. 

The only reason therefore for enacting what is at present desired is 
to tell the Privy Councill what the Law of their Country is, which they 
ought to have known before. 

Duke of Richmond. Do not conceive why we're brought into a long 
Debate by what is absolutely out of Order. 

The Orders of Councill have been brought into Debate affectedly in 
order to lengthen the Debate unnecessarily. Let the Noble Lord move 
for a Day to take the Orders of Councill in this Matter under their 
Consideration and I'll second him — but let us not waste our time. No 
proposal made for Amendment — the Bill ought to be read through and 
the Committee to report it. 

Lord Pomfrct moves that Governors Judges and Justices of Peace 
etc. in America before they act may take an Oath acknowledging the 
Supremacy of Legislature of Great Britain and that a Clause to that 
purpose may be inserted in the Act. 

Question put whether such Clause should be added to the Act. 

Lord Sandys thinks the Clause informal — never saw an etc. in an 
Act of Parliament. 

Duke of Neivcastle moves that the Petition of JNIerchants of London 
trading to North America be read. 

Petition read. 

Duke of Grafton moves the Bill may be committed. 

Lord Coventry. I seldom trouble Your Lordships but in an Affair 
of such Consequence shouild think myself unworthy of a Seat in this 
House could I sit here without giving my Reasons for my Dissenting to 
the further proceeding in this Bill. 

The reasons He has heard for this Bill are all such as Nothing but 
Imbecillity and Impotence could adopt. 

As I can't find any Reason for the Repeal, will give your Lordships 
what I think a good Reason for not repealing it. 

You have come into a Resolution asserting your Right and at the 
same time you're doing an Act by which you give up that Right. 

I speak from Principle. I have not varied my thoughts on this Matter 
3 or 4 times during the Dependance of the Bill. 

Duke of Newcastle. Have never varied my opinion during the 
Progress of this Bill and shall upon the present occasion give Your 
Lordships my Reasons for wishing the Repeal of this Bill. 

With Regard to the Commercial Interests of this Country — from 
[the] best Intelligence I can receive the Trade of this Country is 
declining in Every other part of the World but America. The Turkey 
Trade our Rivals the French have taken a great part from us. Our 
Mediteranean Trade is much lessened. Our Portugal notwithstanding 
the immense sums We have Expended on their account has been 



5 So Documents 

dcminishing for several years past and is now in a state I'm sorr)- to see 
it in. 

[He] alludes to the London Petition and other Petitions to House 
of Commons and the General Stale of the American Trade from which 
(if Nothing else was considered) [there] would be sufficient to shew the 
Inexpediency of continuing the Stamp Act in America. 

Lord Satid-i'ich. Differs so totally with the Noble Duke in what He 
has said that lie chooses to take it up on his Ground. 

1st. Jle thinks that the Reall Commercial Interests of this Country 
will be greatly attected if this Act repealed. 

The present Bill, the most destructive that Ever came into this 
House, has forced its way through another House by means of that 
Democratic Interest which this House was constituted to restrain. In 
this Assembly Men have a Seat by Birth not Election so that No 
Influence by Electors can be here used. 

[It is] Not enough to say you've a Right to lay a Tax — if you don't 
levy it. 

In order to consider the Matter fairly — State what the Americans 
expect from you and what they're willing to give in Return. 

The Americans want to get loose from the Act of Navigation. All 
the Complaints made against the ships stationed on their Coasts to pre- 
vent illicit Trade tend to this purpose. 

The Stamp Act [is] not the Object of their Sedition but to try their 
ground whether by Resistance they can get themselves loose from other 
Acts more disagreeable and detrimental to them. 

Till now I thought the Peace of Fountainbleau One of the greatest 
Acts ever done for this Countrj- — And that the Persons who Negotiated 
and planned it deserved the highest Honours from their Country. But 
if this Act passes I shall alter my Opinion of it. If the Increase of 
Territory is not increase [of] the Public Revenue we should give it up 
again in order to save the Expcnce of defending it. Does not France 
when She adds Alsace or any other conquered Province add to her 
Revenue by laying Duties or Taxes on such Provinces? 

But will America come to a Compromise in this Matter? Will She 
on our giving up the Stamp Act give up the Bounties and other Com- 
mercial Advantages they have from this Country ? 

Before I conclude allow me to declare it is my firm Resolution 
steadily to oppose this and Every other Mode of Partial and unequal 
Taxation. 

I have heard of Another Attempt intended to lay a Tax of this kind. 

If [the] Majority should be for passing this Act [I] will enter a 
public protest. 

Duke of Grafton. One Point that all agree in — that the Stamp Act 
as it now is [is] improper to Stand as a Statute. 

If the Dignity of Legislature is to be maintained it is not to be 
maintained by supporting a Law full of Imperfections and Absurdities. 

If the late Ministry had laid before this and the other House the 
Intelligence they were possessed of I really think this .Act such as it is 
never would have past. If not then It is much more proper now that 
it Should continue no longer, as the Americans who were then much 
disconnected are now totally connected on this point. 

It is computed that there are now loo.ooo Manufacturers out of 
Employ in Great Britain waiting for the Event of this Act. What must 



Debates in Parliament 5 8 1 

be the Consequence of not repealing it? An Increase of Poor Rates. 
A Diminution of the Revenues of Excise. A Loss of the Great Debt 
from America to England. 

It is said that America is not taxed. I answer they pay Taxes in 
taking your Manufactures. In different Colonies they have various 
Taxes for internal purposes which in sotne of the provinces are very 
high. 

If however America is not sufficiently taxed, there are other Means 
by which they may be taxed — don't tax them universally. By that means 
you join them when you should keep them asunder. 

Lord HaHfax. [The] Noble Duke has not in the Course of his 
Speech pointed out any Defects of the Stamp Act. [He] knows none 
except as to the Admiralty Court, which might have been obviated if the 
present Administration had given proper Attention. 

If we repeal this Bill we give up the Dignity of this House and the 
Commerce of the Kingdom. If we amend it in the parts which want 
amendment we shall preserve both. 

Bv the Papers on your Table and by Accounts I have seen out Doors 
it appears that this Act will execute itself if the Administration had 
Spirit enough to enforce it. 

Instead of sending loooo Men to enforce I've alwayes [believed that] 
2 or 3 20 Gun-Ships properly stationed would enforce it. 

Another Thing I would propose — to alter the Duty and take it off as 
far as relates from [to] clearing out or coming in of Ships and leave it 
to operate in all internal Cases which I doubt not would make it go down. 

But the Fact is, as it appears from the Papers on your Lordships 
Table, that it is not the Stamp Act that is opposed but the Authority of 
this Legislature. 

Blame has been thrown on the late Administration of which I was a 
Part for not laying the Resolutions of [the] American Assemblies before 
Parliament. 

[He] refers to the Order of Council on that Head which Shews that 
Several Members of Councell thought it improper to lay these Papers 
before Parliament, among whom I was one. 

I am against the passing of this Bill, for the sake of Every one of the 
Bodies of Men for the sake of whom it is pretended to be ushered in here. 

As to the Merchants they may receive a Present immediate Advan- 
tage by touching the Money at present due to them, but the Blow which 
will be given to Commerce will be felt by them and their posterity. 

As to the Manufacturers — Let them be Employed at the Expence of 
the Publick for the Advantage of publick till Things become more 
settled, which would not be long. 

As to the Americans. Take from them the Advantage of the 
British Legislature, they would in a Short time be totally ruined. 

Duke of Richmond. Thinks the Principle of the Bill absurd. 

That America should be Taxed. The Ballance of Trade with 
America is in our favour. [The taxing means] the taking away from 
them the Money with which She was to pay that Ballance. [It] has been 
said that Americans were returning to their Duty. 

How is that reconcileable with the Letters read this Day which say 
that they are now sending out Emissaries from Town to Town in order to 
spread the Discontent? 

*M. HIST, REV., VOL. XVU. — 38. 



58 2 Documents 

[He] tliinks the N'oblc Lord [Halifax] has not at all justified himself 
for not laying the Papers before Parliament at the time the Stamp Act 
was under the fonsi<leralion of the House. He had an Order of C'ounccll 
to do it and the neglect to »lo it, unless his Lordship can slicw another 
Order to the contrary^ — hopes his Lordship will think it necessary to clear 
himself on Account of his keeping hack these papers, which He can call 
by no other name than secreting them when ordered by Council to lay 
them before rarliamcnt. 

Lord PouWt. for the Hill. 

Lord Pomfrcl for Mill. 

Lord Botetourt against Repeal. 

Lord Suffolk, ^'ou^ Lonlships have almost unanimously come to a 
Resolution that you've a Right to impose Taxes on America — And now 
you are falsifying that Resolution and submitting to the F<esolutions and 
Commands of the Americans. 

They are not to be saiisfirtl with a Modification of the Law nor 
with an Absolute Repeal. 

It is not wonderful that the .Americans should wish to shake off the 
Shackles of Great Britain but it is wonderful that she should find a Sett 
of men in England ready to second her in these Intention^. 

I have with Consistency held the same Ideas with regard to America. 
I consider her as an L'nfortunate People misled by Factious Judges and 
Seditious Lawyers. 

The Noble Lords who said that you have Xo Right have acted con- 
sistently. But what shall be said of those who have been clear in their 
Setiliinents of .Xcknowledging the Right and would now give up that 
Right by passing the Bill of Repeal? 

Your Lordships, who are the Hereditary Councell of this Kingdom, 
not subject to the Caprice of interested Electors, will view this Matter 
in the proper Light and will interpose as is your Duty for the Benefit 
and preservation of the whole. 

I have the greatest Compassion for our Brethren the .■Xmericans and 
for their Sakcs would not consent to the weakening the .\ii;hority of the 
Mother Country. 

It has been said that it is in this Respect adviseable to give way to 
the Americans but if they dared to oppose the Navigation .Act or any 
other I. aw then a Stand oitght to be made against them. 

It may not be improper for us to consider what may be the Conse- 
quence of this Repeal. May it not be that the .Americans will make 
further Demands till they by Degrees gett to Independency and at last 
give Law to these from whom they have received it? 

Lord CliaiH'cllor [Lord Xorthington] hopes to shew my Principles 
and Conduct in this Matter^consistent from the Beginning and with the 
King's speech and ^"our Lordships' Address. 

The Question before you seems to me of a very different Considera- 
tion than has been given by Lords of one side or the other. 

The Declaratory Bill though not of my begetting I adopted as a 
Foundation upon which to build a proper Super-Structure. 

I reverence those who differ with me in Opinion as much as those 
who concur with me. 

Very great persons have difTered in Opinion with me on a very great 
and interesting Subject. [I] have had the happiness to be justified in 
my Opinion by the Joint Resolution of both Houses. 



Debates in Parliament 5 S3 

If it should be thought right to introduce a Metropolitan Police in 
America, The Declaratory Bill will be the foundation of it. 

Three Months before the Meeting of Parliament [he] declared his 
Opinion, declares so now, that the Opposition to the Executing the 
Stamp Act was Rebellion. But how is this Rebellion to be quelled by 
the Authority of Parliament Only? 

In this Case the House of Commons who have alone. the Power of 
giving Subsidies have sent up a Bill for repealing the Stamp Act. The 
Stamp Act cannot at this time be altered or modified. The only Ques- 
tion is whether the Act of Repeal shall pass or not. 

My Conduct in that House may not be able but I'm sure it is not 
[sic~\ Honest. I have No Engagements nor am I linked with any person 
and have No Prompter but my Conscience, And guided by that Con- 
science I would not reject this Bill of Repeal for the Value of all the 
Estates of the Lords who have spoke in this Debate. What is the Con- 
sequence of not repealing it? If it cant be carried into Execution It is 
putting a Law in the King's Hands which he is sworn to Execute but 
[h]as not power. 

Can I my Lords, a Reall Patriot that despise Fame and Profit when 
it interferes with my Country's Benefit, \'ote against a Repeal sent up 
by the other House of Parliament who have the right of granting the 
Subsidies? 

What will be the Consequence of rejecting this Bill? Is it not hold- 
ing out an Invitation to other Insurrections besides those which have 
already happened in America? 

As the House is cleared and none of the House of Commons here I 
will tell your Lordships what I have read in their Votes and heard out 
of the House. They have come to a Resolution telling all America their 
Merchants and their Dependants that they are of Opinion the Bill ought 
to be repealed. Will Your Lordships by disagreeing with them prevent 
or delay a Supply? what ruinous Consequence may [that] be attended 
with. 

I have alwa\'S [been] of Opinion that a Bill of Police is absolutely 
necessary to be introduced into .America. I dont know whether I shall 
live to see that Police introduced. 

The Business requires a great deal of trouble. The time for intro- 
ducing that Policy is when the Three Branches of Legislature and a 
firm Ministry concur in introducing it. 

Lord Littleton [Lyttelton]. Your Lordships have upon the present 
Occasion your own Constancy and Dignity to maintain. 

You have frequently interposed and when the Civium Ardor prava 
jubentium had brought the State into great Danger. 

It is asked whether the Disagreement with the other House of Parlia- 
ment might not be attended with the worst Consequences. I think it 
cannot. 

It is impossible to argue stronger against this Bill than Your Lord- 
ships have already done by your Resolution declaring the Right. 

From the time I first heard of the Insurrections in America in Op- 
position to this Act I had many Apprehensions for the Consequences 
which might attend them, but never had the least Suspicion that the 
Legislature meant on Account of that Opposition to give up the Law. 

When this great Concession is made We are, tis said, to be firm in 



5S4 Docuincnts 

niaintnining all tla- Laws Ihcrc, particularly those for rcKulaliiif; their 
Comnicrcc, which very laws it appears from the Proofs on your Table 
arc the Ground of the present Opposition. 

There is no surer Symptom of Infirmity in a Government than to 
Rive way to Violence and ( (pposition which would be KfTectually quelled 
by Exertion of a proper Sjiiri'. 

The Point on which We are debaiinR is no Question of F.xpefliency, 
it is a Question of Sovereignty till the Americans submit to this Legis- 
lature. 

The repealing the Law is such an Encouragement to the Plan of 
Intimidation taken up by the ,\mericans as may make them much more 
unreasonable in future Demands. Their Insolence will encrease by 
Concessions and where it will stop is not to be known. 

Ry talking big and acting meanly we shall probably draw on us the 
Contempt of all Europe. 

Lord Wkkham [Wycombe, i.e.. the Earl of Shelburne]. The Prin- 
ciples with which I shall at present trouble your Lordships are all 
commercial. 

Trade and Commerce are the Riches of this Kingrlom— .And in 
order to make the Provinces contribute to this Commerce in the proper 
way you are to take Care they take no Manufacture from other Coun- 
tries, and that they don't introduce Manufactures there. 

The North American trade consists of Gentlemen who carry on 
Trade for their own Benefit or by Factors. 

The Rallancc and Advantage of the Colony Trade arises from the 
Exportation to the other Countries of Europe. 

Lord Mansfield. Things are now brought to so perilous a Situation 
that you have Nothing left you but come to Measures which are at 
best doubtful in their Consequences. 

Refused a Proxy because He would not trust himself with the X'ote 
of any Lord but his own. 

The Mischiefs which will attend rejecting this Bill are obvious cer- 
tain and immediate — on the other Side the .-Kdmitting it to pass may be <i 
Measure which instead of removing the Evill may leave a perpetual on^- 
in the Room of it. 

To see the Consequences of this Bill being past We've to consider 
the both Bills together. 

It is now settled that there is no Restriction to the Legislative 
Authority of Great Britain. 

The Americans have adopted on this fatal Occasion a New Prin- 
ciple that they are not subject to the Legislative .\uthority of Great 
Britain. They have refused the Law — have made Reprisals on the 
Efifects of the English there and told them Either repeal the Bill or you 
shan't have your Efifects. 

In this Situaticn what is the F.fifect [of] repealing this .Act? It is the 
giving up the total Legislature of this Kingdom. 

This is the Side of the Measure which Your Lordships ought to 
consider. 

I did throw out in the Beginning of this Debate a Wish that the 
Declaratory Bill might be amended in such a Manner as to make the 
Repeal of the Bill agreeable to me. 

It declares you have a Right which they say you have not — you 



Debates in Parliament 585 

then declare their Resohitions to be null and void, which without your 
Declarations are so in Effect as being; without foundation. 

If a Bill passes which destroys the Land Marks of the Constitution 
it is without Remedy. 

This was the Case when King Charles made the Parliament per- 
petual. It was the Case when the Parliament gave King James his 
Revenue for life. He then took the Dispensing Power of himself and 
could not be obliged to give it up. 

May not the passing this Bill put us in a Situation of being dictated 
to by the Americans, who may think they have a Right to an Open 
Trade and Establishment of Manufactures. What then will become 
of us? 

I have now satisfied my own Conscience and if the J^Ieasure is carried 
I shall give Every Assistance to it in my power. 

Lord Campdcn [Camden]. Some Things which have dropt from the 
Noble Lord who spoke last make it necessary for me to rise in order 
to bring Your Lordships to what has been conceived to be the Point in 
Debate till the Noble Lord took up a New Ground — that the Colonies 
had disclaimed the Legislative Authority of Great Britain and that it 
was a Conflict between Great Britain and America which should be the 
Superior. If that was the reall Question I should and so would Every 
Lord concur with the Noble Lord in his Sentiments on this Matter. 

If therefore it should be proved that the Americans meant only to 
oppose the Law at present under Consideration, I should his 

Lordship would alter his Opinion. 

The true Cause of the Discontent of the Americans has arose from 
the Rigour and Hardship of the Stamp Act. It stands upon a prin- 
ciple, that it is politic to call upon the Plantations to pay a perpetual 
Revenue and Tax in Aid of the Mother Country. 

Now the true Connection between the Colonies and Great Britain is 
commercial. 

The Statute of King Charles is introduced with a Recital which [is] 
verj- opposite to this Idea — reads Preamble. 

This Preamble exactly points out the true State of Great Britain with 
respect to her Colonies. 

If when the present Act was under Contemplation the Americans 
had thought it proper to apply for a Liberty to tax themselves you would 
have given it them. 

Polybius"s Description of the Arcadians being ill-taught Musick etc." 
Liberty has had the same Effects on the Americans. From this They 
have grown up to the Height they are and will still proceed to grow 
unless checkt in the growth. 

From the 15 Car. 2 down to this Day there never was a Murmur 
against the Legislative Authority of Great Britain. What is it has 
changed their minds? No other Cause than the Grievances heapt upon 
them by the late Revenue Acts. 

The Projector must have seen that Difficulties must attend the Ex- 
periment, but this was rather an Incentive than a Discouragement, and 
a Double Plan of Policy was to take place; ist, to strip them of their 
purses, and then to tame their Spirits. 

Mentions the Several Revenue Acts — and the Stamp Act which takes 

" Polybius, Hist., IV. 20. 



586 Documents 

away trial by Jury and Establishes in its place the Flag of the Admiralty 
a Court where Witnesses arc examined in private and their ludtjes and 
Officers paid out of the Condemnation Money. [It is] \'ery improper 
to think that the I-'vidcnce of the Governors, Custom Officers and Officers 
in the Army a sufficient proof of Every Thinfj they have thought proper 
to assert. 

It is the Stamp Act and that only, whatever these people say, that 
lias been the Ground of the present Confusion in .\mcrica — take away 
that and you restore it to peace and Tranquillity; but drive them to 
Desperation and I will not answer for the Consequence. But if after 
repealing this Law they should still continue Refractory Force must be 
used. 

Lord Toivnshcnd. |I] rise up on .Account of a Fact which the Noble 
Lord mentioned, in hopes that it will induce the Noble Lord to be of 
same Opinion with myself. [He] reads Extracts out of the Resolu- 
tions of Massachusetts Hay after the passing the .Act relating to 
Melasscs, where they dispute the power of the Parliaments having Right 
to bind them by Laws without their Consent. 

The Noble Lord [Camden] has given us an Arcadian Description. 
He has given us nothing but Arcadian Descriptions of .America during 
the Course of this debate. 

Lord Temple. [I] shall begin with speaking on the subject of the 
Stamp Act, the Principle of which has been submitted to for near a 
Century. As to the particular Parts which may be Exceptionable it is 
not now under Consideration." 

" Cobbctt (see above, p. 576) mentions that the Duke of Bedford spoke after 
Temple. 



^ 



I 



I ttre 108 110 



SS3d'JN03 dO Adoaai 1 



